An inspector general’s
ability to accomplish that ever-challenging mission depends on the
bedrock principles enshrined in the IG Act: independence and access to
all an agency’s records without interference. I emphasize “all” because
unrestricted access to agency records ensures that our essential
functions cannot be thwarted. Over the past 35 years, that access has
empowered IGs to root out government corruption and save U.S. taxpayers
billions of dollars.

Making matters worse, recently an arm of the Justice Department issued a 68-page opinionthatsupported the FBI’s position and concluded that IGs do not have the right to independently access certain records involving grand jury testimony,
wiretap information and some credit reports, no matter how critical
they might be to our oversight. Indeed, these kinds of records have been
central to some of our most significant reviews of FBI and Justice
Department programs, and for more than 21 years the department had
provided them to us without once accusing us of not properly
safeguarding them. As a result of this decision, it is now up to agency
officials to decide whether to grant, or refuse, an IG permission to
review these types of records. This leads to the absurd situation where
the words “all records” in the IG Act no longer mean “all records.”

Allowing
officials whose agencies are under review to decide what documents an
inspector general can have turns the IG Act on its head and is
fundamentally inconsistent with the independence that is necessary for
effective and credible oversight.

This safeguard was vital when
Congress passed the IG Act in 1978,and it remains vital today. Actions
that limit or delay an inspector general’s access can have profoundly
negative consequences for our work: They make us less effective,
encourage other agencies to raise similar objections and erode the
morale of our dedicated professionals. As chair of the Council of
Inspectors General, I know that inspectors general everywhere are deeply
concerned about this attack on our independence.

Three specific examples were described in the IGs' letter, including blatant obstruction of important investigations at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, and the Peace Corps.
.But many other IGs have “faced similar obstacles to their work, whether
on a claim that some other law or principle trumped the clear mandate
of the IG Act or by the agency’s imposition of unnecessarily burdensome
administrative conditions on access.

Even when we are ultimately able to
resolve these issues with senior agency leadership, the process is
often lengthy, delays our work, and diverts time and attention from
substantive oversight activities.”

Giving Holder the power to veto an IG's access in that manner egregiously violates the 1978 law
and other statutes. Obstruction like Holder’s risks “leaving the
agencies insulated from scrutiny and unacceptably vulnerable to
mismanagement and misconduct –the very problems that our offices were
established to review and that the American people expect us to be able
to address,” the IGs said in their letter to Congress.

It is impossible to know exactly how much the federal bureaucracy
loses every year to waste, fraud and corruption. Credible estimates put
the total at more than $200 billion, but in a $3.5 trillion budget it
could easily far exceed that amount. Every time an IG is barred from
gaining access to vital documents or officials, it encourages even more
wrongdoing.

Congress must get tough with people inthe executive branch who obstruct IGs from doing their jobs. And when it’s the attorney
general doing the obstructing, it’s time to bring back independent
prosecutors.".......................

Comment: Nice article until the last paragraph: "Congress must get tough." Obviously, Congress has made clear it will never "get tough" on fellow government cronies especially in the administrative state. They may sometimes pretend they're outraged about something taxpayers might be outraged about, but it's just for show. Above all, they were never going to "get tough" on anything involving Obama. They agreed with everything he did.